Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC

[The Comfy Chair]

Of course, this only matters if you're the kind of gamer that buys games to look at the pretty graphics and not, you know, PLAY them or anything like that.

Because as we all know, gameplay has never, ever been improved by hardware. Which is why no game has ever more complex gameplay than pong. That's all we ever play, prettied up pong.

Look, at least for me, graphics don't matter. I know upgrading hardware has done a lot for games and the stuff we have now wouldn't have been possible a decade ago. But this constant focus on graphics really annoys me. I like modern graphics but I'd be fine with Gamecube or even PSP level graphics, so long as I can tell what's going on. If you're gonna upgrade your tech, do it so the games can run smooth and process a large world and a large number of dynamic AIs and setpeices instead of wasting all your time and money trying to render and ragdoll every last hair in Widescreen 1080p HD 3D or whatever buzzword is being used this week.

I agree 100% Which is why it depresses me the PS4 has such a low end processor (The graphics card is pretty decent overall for the current time). Graphics cards are useful for GPGPU computing, but without a decent CPU to back it up, interactivity isn't going to be much improved this generation. The PS4s CPU will be outstripped by phones within 2-3 years and that's a big deal to me :/

I know Sony/MS can't afford anything Intel makes, but they could at least have gone for a mid range AMD CPU as opposed to their netbook variants. A 4GHz 8 core piledriver CPU would actually be pretty good for a console. Instead we're going to get something around 1.6GHz (and GHz isn't everything, the Jaguar core is less powerful per clock than even piledriver, let's not even bring Intel's ivy bridge or Haswell into the equation).

Ah well, all hail the mobile phone as the true 'next gen' console i guess.

 

[The Comfy Chair]

Oh no, someone says something good about PCs and bad about consoles, he is clearly an elitist douchebag!!!

So many people seem not to know what an elitist actually is...

They know perfectly well what it is. It's a buzzword that doesn't really say anything meaningful but makes one appear to have a moral high ground.

So somewhat similiar to the actual meaning of 'Elitist'? You know, thinking you are better than person / group x without any actual base or arguments to support that notion... Wait, that does actually imply that they still don't know the meaning of that word (unless they really want to be hypocrits).

Ah, I'm just tired to hear this bullshit word thrown in every time someone wants to discuss something about PC here.

Well we all know the console fanboys who shout elitists are the real elitists using the definition of the term, that's been the irony for years It's great.

Usually it just means 'I don't like that someone is talking about PC tech, because it makes me feel like my console isn't the best gaming experience with no caveats or exceptions, i don't like that people choose other things'. It tends to be a cycle anyway, at the beginning of a generation they used to say how PC was crap, not powerful enough ect. and then they go onto the defensive after a six months to a year when PC is faster. This time they just had to go on the defensive super quick because the consoles are low-mid range gaming PCs this time due to cost/power/thermal restraints.

Funny thing is, the PS4 is a PC with a custom OS anyway. Hell, you can bet that the PS4s APU design will have a PC spinoff for an uber cheap PC gaming machine (The PS4, after all, is a normal APU but with a tweaked CPU/GPU performance balance), since AMD can rake it in from that with much larger profit margins. So are the PS4 fanboys now PC fanboys? Are they, in fact, now calling themselves elitists when complaining about PC gaming?

 

[Twinmill5000]

Oh look another console/PC war in the comments.

Pretty much every point I could bring up here has probably been brought up in one way or another, so I won't say much. Instead, I'm just gonna put another 100 in the bank for my GTX780 fund, spend 20 dollars on crap for Tera, and probably stream some shitty footage of me doing PvE like I matter while later handpicking the highlights to make a somewhat memorable Youtube video.

 

[Jamous]

Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

 

[The Comfy Chair]

Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, 'very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD/Fifa doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole and one that Fifa never appealed to.

Diablo 3 is an example of a big PC title, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it. Guild wars 2 shifted nearly as much as Halo 4 has ('over 3 million' versus 4 million), and that needed a much better PC than a console to run.

The overall install base on PC, if we assume PC is only steam which is a massive underestimate, which is currently on par with what the PS4 will be (we can go off GPU alone, as pretty much anyone who can start a modern game on PC will have a CPU on par) is around 8m users. Which isn't bad overall considering many PC gamers are happy with cards like the gtx560 Ti/HD6870 for now, and for good reason.

 

[Colt47]

Oh look another console/PC war in the comments.

Pretty much every point I could bring up here has probably been brought up in one way or another, so I won't say much. Instead, I'm just gonna put another 100 in the bank for my GTX780 fund, spend 20 dollars on crap for Tera, and probably stream some shitty footage of me doing PvE like I matter while later handpicking the highlights to make a somewhat memorable Youtube video.

Well, no one is going to argue with you on the MMO portion. The painful truth is most MMOs aren't fun to play and exist solely as outlets for competitive play and showmanship. To make matters worse, we've got MMOs to blame for inspiring companies to add achievement systems and other metagame based features, which take people out of the games they are playing and into some kind of strange matrix like world where all games are just point mills for personal worth. Being a long time player of World of Warcraft I've come to realize the whole self perpetuating cycle this brings and how difficult it is to pull oneself out of it (people in the grip of it are afraid to stop because they don't want to fall behind their peers).

 

[Jamous]

Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole it seems. This doesn't apply to all MMS, as Battlefield 3 sold well. Diablo 3 also sold well, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it.

Definitely. That's kind of what I meant though; the really high end stuff is still expensive, so only those that can afford it (or REALLY want it) will get that sort of tech. If you priced a console at the sort of area that a PC with top end processor, RAM, Graphics Card etc. etc. had then that console wouldn't sell because of the extortionate price. I mean, didn't the PS3 suffer in sales because of the pricing at the start of its lifetime? I seem to remember something like that, though I could be pulling it out of my arse I'll be honest. Either way, pricing will affect sales.

 

[zefiris]

And as usual, any thread that touches the subject will be used by PC nerds trying to posit why their choice is the best thing ever, while console nerds disagree with equal stupidity. And yet, both sides will come across as stupid.

Meanwhile, sane people don't give a damn about any of that and just get whatever device plays whatever games they are interested in. That's all that matters.

Slightly better or worse graphics don't matter in the slightest. I rather play Ultima Underworld II or Baldurs Gate II then Dragon Age II.

 

[Something Amyss]

And as usual, any thread that touches the subject will be used by PC nerds trying to posit why their choice is the best thing ever, while console nerds disagree with equal stupidity. And yet, both sides will come across as stupid.

Meanwhile, sane people don't give a damn about any of that and just get whatever device plays whatever games they are interested in. That's all that matters.

Slightly better or worse graphics don't matter in the slightest. I rather play Ultima Underworld II or Baldurs Gate II then Dragon Age II.

Unfortunately, the insane people seem to be the bulk of the community.

 

[The Comfy Chair]

Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole it seems. This doesn't apply to all MMS, as Battlefield 3 sold well. Diablo 3 also sold well, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it.

Definitely. That's kind of what I meant though; the really high end stuff is still expensive, so only those that can afford it (or REALLY want it) will get that sort of tech. If you priced a console at the sort of area that a PC with top end processor, RAM, Graphics Card etc. etc. had then that console wouldn't sell because of the extortionate price. I mean, didn't the PS3 suffer in sales because of the pricing at the start of its lifetime? I seem to remember something like that, though I could be pulling it out of my arse I'll be honest. Either way, pricing will affect sales.

The PS3 did suffer a bit, and that is down quite a lot to the pricing. It's why the PS3 shed so many features in the first year or two to keep costs low.

The Nvidia spokesperson is right overall in terms of where the PS4 is positioned, although i wouldn't say the hd7850 is mid to low end it's more bang straight in the middle of mid range now seeing as it's a £120-140 card (admittedly the HD7850 will be faster due to dedicated memory, as opposed to sharing with the CPU, but *shrug*). Overall i think it's a good place for Sony to aim for in order to sell the console.

I just wish they had focused more on the CPU side. I'd much prefer a decent CPU (AMD FX8320 or similar) coupled with a fairly 'bleh' GPU like a HD7750 that would provide a small bump over current graphics at 1920x1080/60fps. Since that would allow for seriously improving AI and how we interact with the world. If people want prettier graphics on top of the improved interactivity, the PC is there. But how the PS4 is now, we're still going to be limited by a 'meh' level of CPU power in the console market, meaning all multiplatform AAA games will do (for the most part, games like BF3 are the exception) on PC is pretty things up and add superficial interactivity like PhysX, much like now.

 

[zefiris]

Unfortunately, the insane people seem to be the bulk of the community.

This one, maybe, but general gaming community? I doubt it. There's been a push for retro, minecraft is uber popular even now, and people still happily play SNES games on their Wii.

This entire debate is a debate waged among very few people that care disproportionally much about graphics and random stats. Most people just care about actual gameplay fitting what they want. Most people don't even know what 720p and 60 fps MEAN. I've gamed since the Ultima Underworld days, and I sure am not able to tell the difference between 1080p, 720p or generally good PS3 games. They look good enough to me, I hardly see a difference - heck, Shadow of the Colossus doesn't look worse to me than Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3. Most people are the same. That's why you often see console gamers thinking that their games have the exact same graphics as PC ones, while PC gamers point at stats and say no, they don't.

The reason for this is that only affectionados can even spot the difference while playing. Most just don't care. Which is also why, say, WoW is still so popular. Despite the graphics, which should be pretty outdated now.

 

[Jamous]

Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

'Hardcore' (as in, very high end machines' is quite niche, but i wouldn't say 'core' (people who can play AAA games) PC gaming is niche at all, you just have to look at the number of steam users and the sales of games In the end, PC gaming makes up 1/3rd of the annual revenue of companies like EA, so it's about as niche as the PS3 or 360 is.

It just so happens than CoD doesn't sell on PC. But that's not surprising really, as PC is a different market, one that modern CoD doesn't appeal to as a whole it seems. This doesn't apply to all MMS, as Battlefield 3 sold well. Diablo 3 also sold well, smashing through 10 million sales without much of an issue (making it the top selling non-MMO platform exclusive of this generation out of the main 3 platforms by a long way iirc, you don't here is mentioned much surprisingly, but it pummeled games like halo 4 into a fine paste on sales), and that required a PC roughly on par with a console to run it.

Definitely. That's kind of what I meant though; the really high end stuff is still expensive, so only those that can afford it (or REALLY want it) will get that sort of tech. If you priced a console at the sort of area that a PC with top end processor, RAM, Graphics Card etc. etc. had then that console wouldn't sell because of the extortionate price. I mean, didn't the PS3 suffer in sales because of the pricing at the start of its lifetime? I seem to remember something like that, though I could be pulling it out of my arse I'll be honest. Either way, pricing will affect sales.

The PS3 did suffer a bit, and that is down quite a lot to the pricing. It's why the PS3 shed so many features in the first year or two to keep costs low.

The Nvidia spokesperson is right overall in terms of where the PS4 is positioned, although i wouldn't say the hd7850 is mid to low end it's more bang straight in the middle of mid range now seeing as it's a £120-140 card (admittedly the HD7850 will be faster due to dedicated memory, as opposed to sharing with the CPU, but *shrug*). Overall i think it's a good place for Sony to aim for in order to sell the console.

I just wish they had focused more on the CPU side. I'd much prefer a decent CPU (AMD FX8320 or similar) coupled with a fairly 'bleh' GPU like a HD7750 that would provide a small bump over current graphics at 1920x1080/60fps. Since that would allow for seriously improving AI and how we interact with the world. If people want prettier graphics on top of the improved interactivity, the PC is there. But how the PS4 is now, we're still going to be limited by a 'meh' level of CPU power in the console market, meaning all multiplatform AAA games will do (for the most part, games like BF3 are the exception) on PC is pretty things up and add superficial interactivity like PhysX, much like now.

Well you know how it is. We're all obsessed with 'the graffix'. Prettying up is always nice all the same though. Either way, the PS4 is going to be perfectly functional, if perhaps a bit low on processing. The HD7850 is a perfectly good card anyway, so that's not really an issue.
Also please tell me your Username -is- the Monty Python reference. Please. ;D

 

[Larkin109]

The thing i'm really looking forward to out of all this is finally an end to that bloody "Plays best on NVidea!" splash tag that so many games seem to have. I moved away from Nvidea when their cards were in the 4-digit series and moved to AMD/ATi/Radeon (Call them what you will) I find them to be more stable, more easily upgraded over time with simple software updates (Bonus for consoles as well as PCs), cheaper (They don't advertise as openly) and, if you also have an AMD CPU (Currently running a Phenom II 1090T Hex) you get some very nice subtle little performance tweaks. Nvidea does have power, yes, but at quite a high cost. And don't forget, AMD also make the CPUs for the consoles, so all in all, these so-called "low end PCs" will probably be able to handle the next 5-10 years of games with no problems at all, for a fraction of the cost of a high end rig.

That being said i'm a PC gamer through and through and i think all the consoles should burn in hell. Just because i appreciate the technology level they'll be at and see how everyone else will make use of and enjoy using them, doesn't mean i have to LIKE them.

 

[Twinmill5000]

But, don't you see? My choice is the best thing ever. For me.

I mean, a gym membership might help too, and... more expensive 'healthy' food, and probably a savings account for a 401k, but, as far as what I want, PC is the best option for me. Trolling super serious console vs. PC debates probably isn't the best thing for me, though.

It sure is entertaining, however.

As for where I stand, because let's get super serious, shall we? I do believe Consoles are just shitty PCs. Here's the catch, consoles are supposed to be shitty PCs in that their firmware sucks, but their hardware is from 5 years in the future (for what they go for). That's how they work. Except, now, the major companies that supplied consoles with their power and the ability to completely fuck the customer in every other way, are pandering to their main audience more, once more, because, let's face it, Sony's a dickhead of a corporation when it comes to hardware. Nvidia's pushing towards their own vision, viewing Sony's contract as an option in their agendas.

And... great. Some people don't want to use their console for their computer stuff. Most people don't. They also don't want to spend 1100 or more every 3 years just so they can have most awesome gaming experience ever (fine, 500 for a decent one), and most people don't want to spend that sort of money on a machine that's insanely complicated and difficult to navigate if you're new to the whole thing (so the console's shitty firmware actually has some plusses).

But some people do. Some people know it's more expensive-- harder to get into, but still really want the cherry on top of their gaming. And those people are only gonna get more prominent, or their spending will at least, because enthusiasm works like that. People will still pay to have a huge, centralized computer that can run 5 games at once, on 5 seperate displays, all throughout the house. Because, PCs: where fuck cloud gaming, you can make your own cloud that's better. Those people are also in the minority and have to pay accordingly for that awesome tech.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Holy shit, some people STILL don't get it.

More powerful hardware DOES NOT JUST MEAN BETTER LOOKING GAMES. More powerful hardware means more resources. More resources can translate to things like more objects that can be rendered on screen or better physics. Both of these can greatly improve gameplay.

If it weren't for hardware advancements over the years, we'd still be playing two dimensional platformers in pixel art. Complex games like Portal, Battlefield or The Witcher would not exist. By having more powerful hardware, we open ourselves to more, newer possibilities with games.

The PS4 might end up being pretty good, but this "I don't care if the hardware isn't powerful, I just want to play fun games" some people seem to have reeks of ignorance. As of late the consoles have been dictating the general hardware requirements for a lot of games. A lot of people are upset about the PS4's relatively weak hardware set because it holds back new technology from being used because the "baseline" hardware can't handle it. So everyone is poorer for it.

Example: These videos shows a new destruction engine that wont likely be used for several years.

 

[The Comfy Chair]

Well you know how it is. We're all obsessed with 'the graffix'. Prettying up is always nice all the same though. Either way, the PS4 is going to be perfectly functional, if perhaps a bit low on processing. The HD7850 is a perfectly good card anyway, so that's not really an issue.
Also please tell me your Username -is- the Monty Python reference. Please. ;D

Lol, sorry, i found about about the Monty python reference after i started using the name. I just used to love the killing spree notifications in games like UT saying 'The comfy chair is godlike!'

But ya, the HD7850 is a decent enough card, i'd have no problem recommending it for someone playing on a PC for a few years. It's just the PS4s CPU which makes me a sad panda seeing as it's hardly 1/4 the performance of a stock i5-2500K really :<

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

And that is what we call a blatant lie. He's bitter about AMD being the chosen partner for next gen consoles so he's badmouthing PS4 like crazy.
God, this is so low.

 

[The Comfy Chair]

And that is what we call a blatant lie. He's bitter about AMD being the chosen partner for next gen consoles so he's badmouthing PS4 like crazy.
God, this is so low.

He's not lying The CPU is low end (8 core netbook CPU). The GPU isn't 'low to mid range' though. I'd say more central mid range.